@plhought said:
Would love to see like the images above - ACARs functionality with perf and other data implemented like the FSLabs stuff. Very realistic.
Also printer implementation to print ACARs messages
agree. With pushover support like the md80 and fslabs also
@dustingrantham said:
I fly the Q400 for real. Biggest request from me is enhanced VNAV capability in the FMS. In the actual aircraft the FMS will calculate a VNAV path based on a pilot set glide path angle eg. 3 degrees or whatever you choose. This VNAV path respects restrictions that are preprogrammed in STARS and approaches, and also respects constraints put in by the pilots. Furthermore the Path respects ground speed changes, the path will actively update itself to maintain the parameters the pilot has set. This allows for seamless enroute to the ground navigation. You can simply arm the VNAV at top of climb and fly from cruise to the ground without touching anything in the FMS or manually calculating altitudes to cross.
Right now you need to manually calculate individual crossing altitudes on every waypoint in order to keep VNAV active to the ground. Not a big deal but it would be cool to have the accurate functionality.
Otherwise I have always been very impressed with how accurate the aircraft behaves. The system depth is outstanding. The fact that I can fly a hand flown CAT3 to the ground with the HUD is pretty amazing in a flight sim.
Thanks for all you guys do.
Thank you for the suggestion, however why would you need to calculate individual crossing altitudes ? If the FMS VNAV does not have information on the waypoints it overflies, it will calculate it's altitudes automatically
@Struggle_Crow said:
I think a bug fix for the FMS feature is a priority.
We can't select Enroute Transition with SID/STAR Runway selection.
and FMS 1/2 synchronization is needed.
When it's done, please publish the API to allow users to control ACARS.
Some airlines allow pilots to request and input various data of flight plans, fuel, weight calculations, winds, etc., so I think the perfection will increase dramatically if users can design their own design.
Both functions should work, please provide an example of the procesure (transition). Also would be good to have some info on when the FMS fail to syncronize, for us to verify it.
@Boss said:
Both functions should work, please provide an example of the procesure (transition). Also would be good to have some info on when the FMS fail to syncronize, for us to verify it.
Hi, Boss.
As far as I know, this issue affects almost all SIDs with ENROUTE TRANSITION.
Example:
Check the KLAS BOACH8 DEPERTURE with TNP TRANSITION.
With Runway selection(RW08L...etc), We can't select TNP TRANSITION and can only choose the route to BOACH.
The issue has been confirmed by several people.
In addition, I'm talking about FMS1 & FMS2 synchronization supported by FMS version 1000. I'm not talking about a bug.
@dustingrantham said:
I fly the Q400 for real. Biggest request from me is enhanced VNAV capability in the FMS. In the actual aircraft the FMS will calculate a VNAV path based on a pilot set glide path angle eg. 3 degrees or whatever you choose. This VNAV path respects restrictions that are preprogrammed in STARS and approaches, and also respects constraints put in by the pilots. Furthermore the Path respects ground speed changes, the path will actively update itself to maintain the parameters the pilot has set. This allows for seamless enroute to the ground navigation. You can simply arm the VNAV at top of climb and fly from cruise to the ground without touching anything in the FMS or manually calculating altitudes to cross.
Right now you need to manually calculate individual crossing altitudes on every waypoint in order to keep VNAV active to the ground. Not a big deal but it would be cool to have the accurate functionality.
Otherwise I have always been very impressed with how accurate the aircraft behaves. The system depth is outstanding. The fact that I can fly a hand flown CAT3 to the ground with the HUD is pretty amazing in a flight sim.
Thanks for all you guys do.
Thank you for the suggestion, however why would you need to calculate individual crossing altitudes ? If the FMS VNAV does not have information on the waypoints it overflies, it will calculate it's altitudes automatically
I have not yet fully understood what is being criticized here. In many flights I did not see any problem in this regard, i.e. maintaining a vertical profile. Restrictions were observed, and the VS was adjusted if necessary. The same happens with fluctuations in speed, which was also compensated for by changing the VS. So far I have sunk to the FAF / FAP without any problems and the subsequent RNAV GPS approach using VNAV went just as smoothly. Would be really nice to see what works even better in the real Dash.
Hi,
I got the Q400 since the beginning and even that I flew RW before it took me a long time to understand the logic, or should I say illogic, of that particular plane.
Anyway I love her and I do not fly anything else.
We all would like some extra features and I understand that it is not easy to implement everything.
Anyway I would love:
Slight different parameters between engines as in RW.
GSX integration mostly with the GPU and doors.
LPV CAT1 approaches as they are more and more common nowadays.
Performance calculations through the FMS as they have at Air Canada Jazz but I would think difficult to implement but if it could be done I would not mind paying extra for that particular feature.
Regarding the EFB, I think the Navigraph one is working with the Q400 but as far as I am concerned, getting a bit old now, I still prefer the old paper charts.
Just a bit off topic, but as mentioned Struggle Crow in a post above:
As far as I know, this issue affects almost all SIDs with ENROUTE TRANSITION.
Example:
Check the KLAS BOACH8 DEPERTURE with TNP TRANSITION.
With Runway selection(RW08L...etc), We can't select TNP TRANSITION and can only choose the route to BOACH.
The issue has been confirmed by several people.
This is true and a bit ennoying but is it only with the Q400 or is it a problem with the data provider?
Santa can land in my garden with his Q400 equipped with some new features, he would be more than welcome..
I’ll echo some of the points above first and then add my own:
Fix the SID/STAR runway transition issue. I have experienced this as well, coming out of LAS is a good example.
Slightly different engine parameters
EFB / performance calc. Would love to see takeoff &landing distances included
Just an idea, but not a necessity: MJC has provided a Q400F model, can the W&B section of the System Panel be updated to reflect the Q400F in addition to the pax version?
I’m building a Q400 sim so naturally I’d like to see more in the way of a user friendly interface to program inputs and particularly outputs. I am builder, not a programmer. I have been getting by using LINDA for inputs and haven’t started any projects yet with outputs simply because I have no idea where to start with programming those. I definitely appreciate that MJC has opened up the back end for home cockpit users but making that data more accessible via a user interface may make things easier. I plan on upgrading to the training version when it becomes available, so I’m definitely willing to pay for that accessibility. If a user interface is not possible, maybe some tutorials and some expanded documentation on how to access these outputs via UDP / XML might be sufficient.
On the topic of outputs, I’d like to make a functioning Annunciator panel but those individual lights are not included in the outputs. I’ve seen some others mentioning that they would like to have this functionality. Would love to see these outputs.
Not sure of this will be included on the training version or not, but the ability to run the PFD / ND / ED / ARCDU / FMS screens on a networked PC would be amazing for the home cockpit community. Definitely a feature I’d be willing to pay for. Also right now I believe it is not possible to run the left seat PFD / ND at the same time as the right seat PFD / ND. This would be crucial to home cockpit users.
@q400sim said:
I’ll echo some of the points above first and then add my own:
Fix the SID/STAR runway transition issue. I have experienced this as well, coming out of LAS is a good example.
Slightly different engine parameters
EFB / performance calc. Would love to see takeoff &landing distances included
Just an idea, but not a necessity: MJC has provided a Q400F model, can the W&B section of the System Panel be updated to reflect the Q400F in addition to the pax version?
I’m building a Q400 sim so naturally I’d like to see more in the way of a user friendly interface to program inputs and particularly outputs. I am builder, not a programmer. I have been getting by using LINDA for inputs and haven’t started any projects yet with outputs simply because I have no idea where to start with programming those. I definitely appreciate that MJC has opened up the back end for home cockpit users but making that data more accessible via a user interface may make things easier. I plan on upgrading to the training version when it becomes available, so I’m definitely willing to pay for that accessibility. If a user interface is not possible, maybe some tutorials and some expanded documentation on how to access these outputs via UDP / XML might be sufficient.
On the topic of outputs, I’d like to make a functioning Annunciator panel but those individual lights are not included in the outputs. I’ve seen some others mentioning that they would like to have this functionality. Would love to see these outputs.
Not sure of this will be included on the training version or not, but the ability to run the PFD / ND / ED / ARCDU / FMS screens on a networked PC would be amazing for the home cockpit community. Definitely a feature I’d be willing to pay for. Also right now I believe it is not possible to run the left seat PFD / ND at the same time as the right seat PFD / ND. This would be crucial to home cockpit users.
Just a heads up, you project would be more suited for the Cockpit Edition as the TRAINING will not have everything that you desire.
Thank you for the suggestion, however why would you need to calculate individual crossing altitudes ? If the FMS VNAV does not have information on the waypoints it overflies, it will calculate it's altitudes automatically
If there is no crossing altitude for a waypoint on an arrival VNAV will maintain the last known altitude at that waypoint. It will do so for every waypoint until it encounters a leg that leads to a waypoint with a new crossing altitude and then probably disconnect because it can't achieve the path or you better hold on tight. It will not continously descend through the waypoints that don't have a specific altitude entered. I'm pretty sure that's what that post was referring to, at least I know that's what has me calculating crossing altitudes manually. As best as I know, currently you cannot select a desired decent angle in the MJC-8 FMS as the poster explains you can in the real one.
Santa, what I really, really want for Christmas, is to have the the Q400 send haptic feedback through the direct input api of P3D, to an haptic enabled controller. (aka, force feedback). It would be really cool to feel the effects of flying through turbulence at the yoke. I know this has been mentioned before, many moons ago. Just thought I would ask again to see if that particular option is still on the table. Even as a paid update, would be fine. I know that there aren't many people who have haptic controls.
@Jax_in_BC said:
Santa, what I really, really want for Christmas, is to have the the Q400 send haptic feedback through the direct input api of P3D, to an haptic enabled controller. (aka, force feedback). It would be really cool to feel the effects of flying through turbulence at the yoke. I know this has been mentioned before, many moons ago. Just thought I would ask again to see if that particular option is still on the table. Even as a paid update, would be fine. I know that there aren't many people who have haptic controls.
Cheers, and hope you are all well,
Jax
This feature has been available but is reserved primarily for the professional version sold to airlines at an additional cost.
The other thing I forgot to mention that would be nice is a descent banana. would make planning manual descents a tad easier. But this is probably a somewhat major mod
@micstatic said:
The other thing I forgot to mention that would be nice is a descent banana. would make planning manual descents a tad easier. But this is probably a somewhat major mod
I never flew the Q400 in real life, but given the high level of detail and what’s been simulated by Majestic it may be safe to say that there isn’t a descent banana because its real world counterpart doesn’t have that feature. 😉
For manual descents, the 3 to 1 rule works greats. Plan to be at 10,000 feet AGL 30 miles from your destination. 3,000 AGL 10 miles out etc. you can even put those fixes into the VNAV page on the FMS to get vertical guidance, but if you don’t want to do that Vertical Speed mode and some math work great.
@micstatic said:
The other thing I forgot to mention that would be nice is a descent banana. would make planning manual descents a tad easier. But this is probably a somewhat major mod
I never flew the Q400 in real life, but given the high level of detail and what’s been simulated by Majestic it may be safe to say that there isn’t a descent banana because its real world counterpart doesn’t have that feature. 😉
For manual descents, the 3 to 1 rule works greats. Plan to be at 10,000 feet AGL 30 miles from your destination. 3,000 AGL 10 miles out etc. you can even put those fixes into the VNAV page on the FMS to get vertical guidance, but if you don’t want to do that Vertical Speed mode and some math work great.
I think I read somewhere that our version uses an older version of the actual software the plane fms uses. I believe the newer real life q400's have the feature. One of the resident RW pilots can correct me
We thank all of you who provided us with ideas/suggestions. We will review the discussions and make a determination as to which items may be feasible contenders for implementation for future updates/enhancements.
Also bear in mind that there are some items that will not be practical/feasible without re-programming some aspects of the systems for which we are not willing to forego further delaying the Q400's tentative release and the further development of the Q300 v2.
Comments
agree. With pushover support like the md80 and fslabs also
Thank you for the suggestion, however why would you need to calculate individual crossing altitudes ? If the FMS VNAV does not have information on the waypoints it overflies, it will calculate it's altitudes automatically
Both functions should work, please provide an example of the procesure (transition). Also would be good to have some info on when the FMS fail to syncronize, for us to verify it.
Hi, Boss.
As far as I know, this issue affects almost all SIDs with ENROUTE TRANSITION.
Example:
Check the KLAS BOACH8 DEPERTURE with TNP TRANSITION.
With Runway selection(RW08L...etc), We can't select TNP TRANSITION and can only choose the route to BOACH.
The issue has been confirmed by several people.
In addition, I'm talking about FMS1 & FMS2 synchronization supported by FMS version 1000. I'm not talking about a bug.
@Boss
Please check following link.
FMS Bug
FMS SID STAR LOGIC
http://majesticsoftware.com/forums/discussion/468/fms-sid-star-logic
FMS1 & FMS2 Sync.
FMS System Update forseen?
http://majesticsoftware.com/forums/discussion/946/fms-system-update-forseen
I have not yet fully understood what is being criticized here. In many flights I did not see any problem in this regard, i.e. maintaining a vertical profile. Restrictions were observed, and the VS was adjusted if necessary. The same happens with fluctuations in speed, which was also compensated for by changing the VS. So far I have sunk to the FAF / FAP without any problems and the subsequent RNAV GPS approach using VNAV went just as smoothly. Would be really nice to see what works even better in the real Dash.
Hi,
I got the Q400 since the beginning and even that I flew RW before it took me a long time to understand the logic, or should I say illogic, of that particular plane.
Anyway I love her and I do not fly anything else.
We all would like some extra features and I understand that it is not easy to implement everything.
Anyway I would love:
Regarding the EFB, I think the Navigraph one is working with the Q400 but as far as I am concerned, getting a bit old now, I still prefer the old paper charts.
Just a bit off topic, but as mentioned Struggle Crow in a post above:
This is true and a bit ennoying but is it only with the Q400 or is it a problem with the data provider?
Santa can land in my garden with his Q400 equipped with some new features, he would be more than welcome..
Regards,
JP
I’ll echo some of the points above first and then add my own:
Fix the SID/STAR runway transition issue. I have experienced this as well, coming out of LAS is a good example.
Slightly different engine parameters
EFB / performance calc. Would love to see takeoff &landing distances included
Just an idea, but not a necessity: MJC has provided a Q400F model, can the W&B section of the System Panel be updated to reflect the Q400F in addition to the pax version?
I’m building a Q400 sim so naturally I’d like to see more in the way of a user friendly interface to program inputs and particularly outputs. I am builder, not a programmer. I have been getting by using LINDA for inputs and haven’t started any projects yet with outputs simply because I have no idea where to start with programming those. I definitely appreciate that MJC has opened up the back end for home cockpit users but making that data more accessible via a user interface may make things easier. I plan on upgrading to the training version when it becomes available, so I’m definitely willing to pay for that accessibility. If a user interface is not possible, maybe some tutorials and some expanded documentation on how to access these outputs via UDP / XML might be sufficient.
On the topic of outputs, I’d like to make a functioning Annunciator panel but those individual lights are not included in the outputs. I’ve seen some others mentioning that they would like to have this functionality. Would love to see these outputs.
Not sure of this will be included on the training version or not, but the ability to run the PFD / ND / ED / ARCDU / FMS screens on a networked PC would be amazing for the home cockpit community. Definitely a feature I’d be willing to pay for. Also right now I believe it is not possible to run the left seat PFD / ND at the same time as the right seat PFD / ND. This would be crucial to home cockpit users.
Just a heads up, you project would be more suited for the Cockpit Edition as the TRAINING will not have everything that you desire.
If there is no crossing altitude for a waypoint on an arrival VNAV will maintain the last known altitude at that waypoint. It will do so for every waypoint until it encounters a leg that leads to a waypoint with a new crossing altitude and then probably disconnect because it can't achieve the path or you better hold on tight. It will not continously descend through the waypoints that don't have a specific altitude entered. I'm pretty sure that's what that post was referring to, at least I know that's what has me calculating crossing altitudes manually. As best as I know, currently you cannot select a desired decent angle in the MJC-8 FMS as the poster explains you can in the real one.
-a shortcut key assignment for Left CDU,
-more clear PFD and ND panels in VC...
Santa, what I really, really want for Christmas, is to have the the Q400 send haptic feedback through the direct input api of P3D, to an haptic enabled controller. (aka, force feedback). It would be really cool to feel the effects of flying through turbulence at the yoke. I know this has been mentioned before, many moons ago. Just thought I would ask again to see if that particular option is still on the table. Even as a paid update, would be fine. I know that there aren't many people who have haptic controls.
Cheers, and hope you are all well,
Jax
This feature has been available but is reserved primarily for the professional version sold to airlines at an additional cost.
Cheers
call me simple. But raindrops and a more HD like virtual cockpit is all I want. PBR exterior would just be an added benefit.
The other thing I forgot to mention that would be nice is a descent banana. would make planning manual descents a tad easier. But this is probably a somewhat major mod
I never flew the Q400 in real life, but given the high level of detail and what’s been simulated by Majestic it may be safe to say that there isn’t a descent banana because its real world counterpart doesn’t have that feature. 😉
For manual descents, the 3 to 1 rule works greats. Plan to be at 10,000 feet AGL 30 miles from your destination. 3,000 AGL 10 miles out etc. you can even put those fixes into the VNAV page on the FMS to get vertical guidance, but if you don’t want to do that Vertical Speed mode and some math work great.
I think I read somewhere that our version uses an older version of the actual software the plane fms uses. I believe the newer real life q400's have the feature. One of the resident RW pilots can correct me
We thank all of you who provided us with ideas/suggestions. We will review the discussions and make a determination as to which items may be feasible contenders for implementation for future updates/enhancements.
Also bear in mind that there are some items that will not be practical/feasible without re-programming some aspects of the systems for which we are not willing to forego further delaying the Q400's tentative release and the further development of the Q300 v2.
This thread is now officially closed.